This purports to be the new wonder weapon in the "lack of spectrum" arms
race. Seems to me to be latest patent medicine.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03..._breakthrough/

tom
K0TAR

tom wrote:
This purports to be the new wonder weapon in the "lack of spectrum" arms
race. Seems to me to be latest patent medicine.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03..._breakthrough/

tom
K0TAR

You only have to read as far as:

"This novel radio technique allows the implementation of, in principle, an
infinite number of channels in a given, fixed bandwidth..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
to know it is crap, in principle or otherwise.

On 3/3/12 9:40 PM, wrote:

You only have to read as far as:

"This novel radio technique allows the implementation of, in principle, an
infinite number of channels in a given, fixed bandwidth..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
to know it is crap, in principle or otherwise.


Yeah, I read further though. It's one of those things where infinite
bandwidth requires infinite power, And almost infinite power pretty quickly.

This is a relative of the phase shift idea, where we can make smaller
and smaller shifts until we have amazing channel carrying capacity.

Too bad it doesn't work in the real world. Zero Point energy is more likely.

However, in the digital world, they think that Moore's law applies to
bandwidth, so there will be grant money to chase this wild goose.

- 73 de Mike N3LI -

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:38:12 -0600, tom wrote:

This purports to be the new wonder weapon in the "lack of spectrum" arms
race. Seems to me to be latest patent medicine.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03..._breakthrough/
tom
K0TAR

I guess they don't care where the dish focus is located or disclosing
how the antenna or receiver seperated the two signals, each with a
different "spin".

The Register summary is a muddle of buzzwords. The original article
is more detailed and enlightening.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/3/033001/article


--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558
# http://802.11junk.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS

Michael Coslo wrote:
On 3/3/12 9:40 PM, wrote:

You only have to read as far as:

"This novel radio technique allows the implementation of, in principle, an
infinite number of channels in a given, fixed bandwidth..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
to know it is crap, in principle or otherwise.


Yeah, I read further though. It's one of those things where infinite
bandwidth requires infinite power, And almost infinite power pretty quickly.

This is a relative of the phase shift idea, where we can make smaller
and smaller shifts until we have amazing channel carrying capacity.

Too bad it doesn't work in the real world. Zero Point energy is more likely.

It seems you make the mistake of equating a "channel" in terms of
communication theory to a slice of bandwidth on RF. Those are
clearly not the same thing.

One can use the same RF bandwidth slice as a channel multiple times,
and thus transfer many times the amount of information such a communication
channel can theoretically carry.

Examples:

- horizontal and vertical polarisation of EM waves

- beam antennas beaming in different directions

- pairs of sending/receiving antennas that are shielded from eachother
e.g. by the curvature of the earth

Of course, the Shannon theory considers all those different instances a
different channel, each of which can carry a certain amount of information.

But as the user/licensee of a slice of spectrum, it is tempting to call
that slice of spectrum a channel and welcome any way of transferring more
information through it that was thought possible before.

And this seems to be what is going on here.

Of course, practical limitations on separation will make it impossible
to realize a large gain from this, let alone "an infinite number". But
that is just the journalists ignorance part of it.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:54:28 -0800, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:38:12 -0600, tom wrote:

This purports to be the new wonder weapon in the "lack of spectrum" arms
race. Seems to me to be latest patent medicine.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03..._breakthrough/
tom
K0TAR

I guess they don't care where the dish focus is located or disclosing
how the antenna or receiver seperated the two signals, each with a
different "spin".

The Register summary is a muddle of buzzwords. The original article
is more detailed and enlightening.
http://iopscience.iop.org/1367-2630/14/3/033001/article

It is one of the most funny April fool stuff

w.

On Sat, 03 Mar 2012 19:38:12 -0600, tom wrote:

This purports to be the new wonder weapon in the "lack of spectrum" arms
race. Seems to me to be latest patent medicine.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03..._breakthrough/

tom
K0TAR

Until it bounces off something, then the "real world" takes over.

"Michael Coslo" wrote in message
...
On 3/3/12 9:40 PM, wrote:

You only have to read as far as:

"This novel radio technique allows the implementation of, in principle,
an
infinite number of channels in a given, fixed bandwidth..."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^
to know it is crap, in principle or otherwise.


Yeah, I read further though. It's one of those things where infinite
bandwidth requires infinite power, And almost infinite power pretty
quickly.

snip
- 73 de Mike N3LI -

-
Some years ago, I got in a major ****ing contest with a high ranking Dept of
the Army civillian because he wanted a study of zero bandwidth transmission.
His theory....with zero bandwidth there would be no noise, and thus an
infinite signal to noise ratio. They are still out there......

On 3/5/12 12:00 PM, Wayne wrote:
"Michael wrote in message

Yeah, I read further though. It's one of those things where infinite
bandwidth requires infinite power, And almost infinite power pretty
quickly.

snip
- 73 de Mike N3LI -

-
Some years ago, I got in a major ****ing contest with a high ranking Dept of
the Army civillian because he wanted a study of zero bandwidth transmission.
His theory....with zero bandwidth there would be no noise, and thus an
infinite signal to noise ratio. They are still out there......


We simply must repeal the laws of physics - they just get in the way.

Upon further looks at their document, it looks like they are putting
that continual twist on the signal by cutting the parabolic dish, then
moving one side of the cut a little closer. Apparently that makes the
signal twist continuously.

Bloody hell, they should have saved that for April 1st.


- 73 de Mike N3LI -